LogFAQs > #899253845

slacker03150 posted...

Actually, it is an opinion.

No, it's not.

slacker03150 posted...

If marriage is going to exists and be between life mates who do not necessarily have to have children, there is no reason to discriminate against which life mates get to participate.

An argument which doesn't even make sense at face value.

slacker03150 posted...

It can be swayed based on the argument, it is just that the opposition argument is shit because they don't make it without bringing up religion.

Maybe that has to do with the fact marriage is a religious rite...

slacker03150 posted...

Here is where I get to demonstrate that it is an opinion rather than a belief. If the argument is that marriage is a religious rite, then I agree same sex marriages should be between the couple and their religion, whether that involves gay marriage or not. On the other hand, while marriage also remains a legal status, it doesn't matter if it is a religious rite to some religions. We have made it a legal status and therefore the qualifications for participating can not be based on a religion as that would be unconstitutional.

Then have a separate legal recognition for domestic partnerships. Given that advocates are already trying to move away from the husband/wife verbiage, it would also make more sense.

slacker03150 posted...

I am not compelling them to act against their faith as I am not compelling them to get married to someone of the same sex. I am not even compelling them to participate in the ceremony beyond selling a product they already sell to the public. If they sell a service related to marriage, I respect their right to deny it.

However, legislating their religious belief compels people to act in that regard even if they do not follow that religion, (In which case I believe it is just as intrusive, not less so.) or if their religion does not ban it, or if it even has allowances for it then legislating it that way actually does compel them to go against their beliefs(which is as intrusive as it is the same thing).

Of course you aren't personally doing it, the government is. And, as the laws change, the intrusion will get increasingly worse. Right now it's illegal for for-profit businesses to refuse to officiate but, over time, those laws will almost certainly go after non-profits as well. That's in addition to already attacking people providing wedding services. And, quite frankly, half the reason it had to be *marriage* rather than any other word was that it enabled these kinds of attacks by militant advocates and profit-seeking opportunists.

Guide posted...

The thing about marriage specifically is that it's a religious rite rather than just a domestic partnership

This is an old and stale topic, but I don't get how this can keep being pushed. Marriage and rites of marriage can be religious. They are not religious by default.

Every (or nearly every) historical culture that recognized marriage as a ritual did so on some religious footing. There were other forms of partnership, but marriage itself was a religious rite.
---

(\/)(\/)|-|
There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist.